Public Safety Committee on Feb. 27th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Is that...?

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Easter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I had a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay.

Is the committee in agreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Would you invite the witness who you would like to come to the table, please?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The individual who would be able to indicate what offences will be covered under this legislation....

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

The chair would simply ask, before you respond, if you could please identify yourself and your title to the committee. It would be appreciated.

[Daryl Churney, Director, Corrections Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Daryl Churney. I'm the director of corrections policy at Public Safety Canada. With me today is Dr. Ian Broom, senior policy analyst with corrections policy at Public Safety Canada, and Mr. Michel Laprade, general counsel with legal services at Correctional Service of Canada.

In relation to the question with respect to the government's first motion to amend and the additional nuance in that sentence, really what that's trying to do is to clarify only.

The definition of a offence involving violence can be a very complicated definition. Many federal offenders can be serving sentences of imprisonment for more than one crime. They're often serving what we call “merged” sentences. They might be serving one sentence for a violent offence and another for a non-violent offence such as fraud or something of that nature.

This clarification seeks to make it very clear that the mandatory parole review changes apply only in respect of those convictions where it's a violent offence. If somebody is serving a 10-year sentence and eight years of that sentence applies to a violent offence, for example, and two years to a drug offence, that portion would not be captured.

So it's to clarify that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

We have Mr. Easter first, followed by Mr. Garrison with a question.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is probably more so for the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chair.

I'm operating under the assumption that these government amendments have been run by the Department of Justice, have they, and not just Public Safety?

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

These amendments are all in order, and they're the ones we've brought forward to the committee today.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You can't tell us whether they've been run by the Department of Justice?

We are dealing with the Criminal Code. I think that's a legitimate question, Mr. Chair.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

There are no changes to the Criminal Code in this particular private member's bill.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It's a corrections act, but anyway, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Garrison.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

I thank the officials for appearing here. I think it's quite helpful.

I want to go back to the question I was asking about (a) in the amendment. I believe what I heard is a confirmation that the offences originally contemplated in Bill C-479 will all still be covered; this prevents inadvertently pulling others who may be serving a sentence for another crime under the umbrella of Bill C-479.

[Daryl Churney]

You are correct.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So it does in fact not narrow who it would apply to, except in the technical sense.

[Daryl Churney]

That's right. This amendment does not narrow the scope.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

There's also the question that I had asked about whether the wording in this bill overrides references to two years elsewhere, which I believe relates to (b) in the comments by the parliamentary secretary. Could I ask for a clarification of that?

[Daryl Churney]

Certainly. That wording, “Despite subsection (5.1)”, was included to clarify that obviously the amendments in Bill C-479 apply only to those offenders serving time for a violent offence. The lengthening of the mandatory parole review period applies only to those offenders.

For all other offenders, for the non-violent offenders, the two-year period will continue to exist. That's why we had to differentiate that the current set of rules will continue to apply for those non-violent offenders, whereas Bill C-479 will take effect for violent offenders.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

The same would then apply to (c) in the amendment. It's simply a technical amendment preventing the casting of too wide a net.

[Daryl Churney]

That's exactly right.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Okay. Thank you very much. That was very useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

If there are no further questions to our witnesses at this point, you can certainly be excused.

Thank you very kindly. Pending further calls—